The Australian Government's Blacklisted Website List

March 18, 2009 8:45 PM

Wikileaks has posted the complete list of websites that the Australian Government intends to block under its proposed opt-out internet censorship scheme. The Government has flagged plans to expand the blacklist to 10,000 sites or more.

Most of the sites have no obvious connection to child pornography, which is the Government's main justifcation for introducing the scheme. Wikileaks is one of the sites listed, as are some Wikipedia pages and "a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist."

ACMA has issued take-down notices and threatened fines of $11,000 per day to websites hosted in Australia (so Metafilter should be OK) which contain material, or a link to material, on this blacklist.

The scheme is expected to slow the internet to a crawl (not a great thing given we're already lagging behind most of the world on internet speeds), will significantly limit the flow of information to Australians and will place the country in the same league as China and the United Arab Emirates.

Don't like the sound of this? Here's a website dedicated to opposing the laws. Think it's a great idea? Send Senator Conroy a thank you note.

posted by Effigy2000 (79 comments total)

not a great thing given we're already lagging behind most of the world on internet speeds

Not so fast! America leads the world in lagging behind on internet speeds!
posted by b1tr0t at 8:49 PM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

Yeah, this is bullshit on a china plate.

*sighs wearily*
posted by Wolof at 8:53 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Please, please, please don't censor Summer Heights High... pleaassee.
posted by pwally at 8:53 PM on March 18, 2009

The phrase "The Clean Feed" sounds like something straight out an early Stephenson novel.
posted by Keith Talent at 8:56 PM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

What's their justification for censoring information about the blacklist itself? Do they even have one?

Is there any basis in Australian law for appealing censorship of materials that aren't themselves illegal, e.g. discussion of what's prohibited? Quite frightening if that's not the case.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:03 PM on March 18, 2009

I just saw my first child porn. Thanks, Metafilter!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:07 PM on March 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

Web blacklist outcry: dentist, tuckshop on official 'hate list'
posted by Wolof at 9:08 PM on March 18, 2009

I feel really bad that my first reaction was "Is Cortex's site on this one, too?"
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 9:09 PM on March 18, 2009

Crosses Australia of list of possible safe havens. Not good. It was the last one where English was in vogue.
posted by notreally at 9:12 PM on March 18, 2009

f
posted by notreally at 9:13 PM on March 18, 2009

"What's their justification for censoring information about the blacklist itself? Do they even have one?"
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:03 PM on March 19

If they have one I've not heard it.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:17 PM on March 18, 2009

I was all ready to snark about how out-of-touch the people who made this list were, etc. etc., but they've found some truly reprehensible stuff. But, then there's the almost benign (in the internet realm) sites that are listed, like redtube, ishotmyself, and thehun's yellow pages.

The whole thing comes off like that comic about mixing profanity levels--gosh-darned c*nts!
posted by Benjy at 9:17 PM on March 18, 2009

The scheme is expected to slow the internet to a crawl

Citation?
posted by peacay at 9:18 PM on March 18, 2009

"What's their justification for censoring information about the blacklist itself? Do they even have one?"

Well, it gives you a handy list of nefarious sites to visit via an anonymizing proxy.
posted by jedicus at 9:19 PM on March 18, 2009

Silly Cnuts.
posted by unSane at 9:21 PM on March 18, 2009

Wikileaks seems to be overwhelmed right now. My God, the enthusiasm the internet community will have for this list!
posted by twoleftfeet at 9:21 PM on March 18, 2009

pecay;

"[...] the filters would slow the internet (as much as 87 per cent by some measures), be easily bypassed, and would not come close to capturing all of the nasty content available online."
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:21 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I, for one, applaud the Australian government for their effort to rid the web of the dreaded lemonparty.org
posted by paisley henosis at 9:24 PM on March 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

Seems like Wikileaks just bit the dust, at least from my end; here are some cached links:
WikiLeaks main site
The Blacklist List
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:26 PM on March 18, 2009

How quaint, that your government redacts stuff for you. Here, we have our corporations do that for us.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:33 PM on March 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

This sounds like a really bad idea.
posted by Kevin Street at 9:36 PM on March 18, 2009

But, then there's the almost benign (in the internet realm) sites that are listed, like redtube, ishotmyself,

It took me a while to figure out why the apparent hot-nor-not variant "is hot myself" had such a screwy name.
posted by kiltedtaco at 9:42 PM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

This sounds like a really bad idea.

You're just saying that because it will cost a lot of money to implement, will only work on non-encrypted http traffic, which only an idiot would use to transfer illegal content, and can easily be bypassed using an anonymizing proxy. Frankly I think you need to think of the children a bit more.
posted by markr at 9:47 PM on March 18, 2009 [11 favorites]

So basically, the Australian government has decided to destroy the domestic webhosting business?
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:52 PM on March 18, 2009

The Whirlpool thread wherein tardis42 got the Danish Blacklist page blocked.

"On this occasion ACMA has also referred the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency."

posted by tellurian at 9:53 PM on March 18, 2009

A photo of a pumpkin that happens to look like the famous "goatse" photo is on the block list, too, apparently.

(I have no idea if that page will switch to something else, or if it is normally different, but right now it is just a pumpkin and a pair of underpants.)
posted by paisley henosis at 9:59 PM on March 18, 2009

Please, please, please don't censor Summer Heights High... pleaassee.

Are you kidding? It shows - amongst other things - a grown man dressed as a schoolgirl, trying to pick up a 12yo boy!
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:09 PM on March 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

will only work on non-encrypted http traffic, which only an idiot would use to transfer illegal content

Methinks you're putting a bit too much faith in people downloading illegal stuff.
posted by daniel_charms at 10:12 PM on March 18, 2009

This is freakin' hilarious. Everyone warned the soon-to-be Government this would be impossible, but did you ever think it would become such a laff-fest? At least they stitched up the Maude Flanders vote, so it was worth it to that extent.

news.com.au said the Government department even lied about the number of sites that was banned! What a bunch of incompetent, shifty, lying toads. Fucking incredible.

Death by a thousand cuts.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:15 PM on March 18, 2009

Wikileaks sure has been on a roll lately.
posted by JHarris at 10:20 PM on March 18, 2009

protest this saturday
posted by girlgenius at 10:26 PM on March 18, 2009

Pope Guilty: "So basically, the Australian government has decided to destroy the domestic webhosting business?"

Apparently. I'm pretty sure several of the more vanilla sites on that list are Australian, at least nominally. (They may be and probably are hosted elsewhere.)

The irony is that Australia already has a traffic-balancing problem: in general, there's a lot more demand for bits going into Australia than bits coming out. This causes issues and additional expense at the backbone level, because nobody is going to peer with you in an unequal situation like that — they're going to make you pay for transfer instead. If there were more sites of interest to an international audience hosted in Australia, enough to equal out the demand for traffic and allow more preferable peering arrangements across the Pacific, bandwidth there probably wouldn't cost quite as much as it does.

If this sort of thing continues, the only "hosting" that will exist in Australia will be cache servers (transparent systems run by ISPs to lessen transfer costs, plus commercial systems like Akamai's — and that's assuming their laws exempt operators of automatic cache systems from liability for content stored there. I could see it being preferable for an Australian wanting to start a web site to host it in some neutral country and then pay an edge-caching service to make it more accessible to other Australians, rather than actually hosting it there. At least if you did that, the site would be more difficult to take down and would remain accessible even if the material was removed from the cache, at least to users able to use proxies.

Unfortunately I could see this happening all too easily in the US as well. Not immediately — the busybodies in Congress are thankfully too busy with the economy to do much meddling anywhere else — but down the road, I think just about every country with a democratic form of government is going to have to deal with issues like this. They are just too easy a sell by demagogues to the populace. They always start out with child pornography (or something equally offensive), since that's tough to oppose and gives you the opportunity to tar any opposition as a bunch of perverts, and work up from there. Since the technology exists, at least theoretically, to ban such content, there will always be the temptation to use it, and once it's in place, it will always be abused for other ends.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:28 PM on March 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

"I, for one, applaud the Australian government for their effort to rid the web of the dreaded lemonparty.org"

Well, wasn't expecting that.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:31 PM on March 18, 2009

Do not visit that link if you value your sanity! It's got nothing to do with lemons.

*shudder*
posted by Kevin Street at 10:34 PM on March 18, 2009

Did Bush and Cheney move down under and steal your election too?
posted by double block and bleed at 10:35 PM on March 18, 2009

Australia has a long history of censorship. Selling pornography is banned there in all states. There is no protection for free speech. Even with the current left-wing government it is a very conservative country.
posted by bhnyc at 10:46 PM on March 18, 2009

"Unfortunately I could see this happening all too easily in the US as well. Not immediately — the busybodies in Congress are thankfully too busy with the economy to do much meddling anywhere else — but down the road, I think just about every country with a democratic form of government is going to have to deal with issues like this."

I'm sure it will be proposed. We've already seen variants many times - COPA, for instance, which was shot down by the courts. Plus, a lot of our admins are crazy Unix neckbeard guys who will go apeshit if anything like this comes to pass here, and they're going to be invaluable in such a situation. I think it might meet some stiff resistance on the infrastructure level.

Well, I'd like to think so, but maybe not ...
posted by krinklyfig at 10:47 PM on March 18, 2009

Did Bush and Cheney move down under and steal your election too?

No but Bush's daddy stole the 1973 election NO LIES!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:48 PM on March 18, 2009

"Did Bush and Cheney move down under and steal your election too?"
posted by double block and bleed at 4:35 PM on March 19

For the benefit of our international friends, here's the context to the formation of this scheme.

Before 2007, we had a conservative government led by a man named John Howard. The leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, led a party called the Labor Party, which is similar in political leanings to the Democrats.

One of the policies Howard announced during the 2007 election campaign was an internet filtering scheme. It played to his core support base well and he hoped it would win him votes away from people who might support him but were considering voting for Rudd, something which the polls indicated many people were thinking of doing. Rudd and Labor decided the best way to counter the effect Howards proposal could have on their vote was to match it.

In the end, Rudd won. For those of us who lived under Howard's tyranical rule, this was a wonderful result. Until we remembered that he's promised this. And unlike Howard, Rudd is trying to deliver on all his election promises.

So for the most part, having Rudd as our PM is great, as far as I and many others (according to the polling) are concerned. It's just that this one particular policy, made in the backdrop of a hightly charged election campaign, really sucks.

I suspect in the end they will find it blocked by the Senate and use this as a means to kill it, but the fact that there's even a remote chance that it could become law scares me.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:50 PM on March 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

Thanks for explaining that, E2K. There are so many mean and petty people in power who want nothing more than to strip as many freedoms as possible from those of us who are supposedly free. I hate to trot out the old 1984 reference, but the older I get, the more I see power for the sake of power as a very real and dangerous thing.

Here's to hoping that your country's stupid proposed law dies, along with all of the other laws like it everywhere.
posted by double block and bleed at 11:05 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Conroy has said that the list is a fake. But he's referring the matter to the Federal Police anyway. One has to wonder why he'd bother if the list is fake.
posted by Effigy2000 at 11:16 PM on March 18, 2009

--Even with the current left-wing government it is a very conservative country.--

*blink*
posted by peacay at 11:19 PM on March 18, 2009

Conroy is a man clearly out of his depth, trying to resolutely push a policy that everyone knows is bullshit and even in the face of stunts like this is determined to carry on regardless. I am sure most people in the ALP are hoping like hell that it dies in the Senate. I wonder what terrible ALP crime Conroy committed to have to carry this terrible bucket of shit?
posted by awfurby at 11:24 PM on March 18, 2009

They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 11:28 PM on March 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

--Even with the current left-wing government it is a very conservative country.--
*blink*

I'm saying this as an Australian that lives overseas. I know it goes completely against the self-image of Australians (including myself until I left the country)
posted by bhnyc at 11:30 PM on March 18, 2009

Selling pornography is banned there in all states.

Selling some pornography is banned in all states. This is very much not the same thing.

You can see full-frontal male nudity as a matter of course on one of the Government-sponsored television channels. Prostitution is legal in the three largest states and sanctions are almost never enforced in the others.

Carry on.
posted by Wolof at 11:33 PM on March 18, 2009

peacay, the Labor Government we have in power is, technically, a social democrat party. It stands on a platform of social democracy at any rate. But to compete with the Howard Government, a very right wing government that was in power here for 11 years until Labor beat them in 2007, they had to shift to the right a bit. It was doing this that they won.

In recent weeks, Labor seems to have shifted a little more back to the centre but the statement that "even with the current left-wing government it is a very conservative country" is still probably true. You can't undo 11 years of conservatism overnight, or even in 1 and a bit years.
posted by Effigy2000 at 11:35 PM on March 18, 2009

Methinks you're putting a bit too much faith in people downloading illegal stuff.
posted by daniel_charms at 10:12 PM on March 18 [+] [!]

Bruce Scheiner explains how sophisticated child porn distribution has become and how efforts like this are completely useless in combating it.
posted by dirty lies at 11:38 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Selling pornography is banned there in all states. There is no protection for free speech. Even with the current left-wing government it is a very conservative country.

erm, three facts wrong in three sentences.
1) pornography available from any milkbar (corner store, 7/11, etc)
2) clear free speech protection through a number of high court decisions. We're a common-law country, we don't have to write everything down. And some States have charters of human rights anyway.
3) I would argue that this is a) not really a left-wing government, but b) equally we're pretty M.O.R. for advanced nations regarding progressiveness. Moreso than Canada and new Zealand and the USA as a totality. Less so than scandinavian countries, but who isn't?


Anyway, good post effigy2000. Sad, very sad, this whole idiotic debate.
posted by wilful at 11:43 PM on March 18, 2009

dirty lies: Thanks for the link. I might have to retract my earlier statement, since that is quite clever.
posted by daniel_charms at 11:57 PM on March 18, 2009

some pornography is banned

only the pornography that has people having sex!

the sex has to be simulated for it to not get X18+ rating

You can see full-frontal male nudity as a matter of course on one of the Government-sponsored television channels. Prostitution is legal in the three largest states...

Yes I'm aware of this, but things like race riots near where I grew up, police with sniffer dogs on the streets are just scary.
posted by bhnyc at 12:05 AM on March 19, 2009

bhnyc: You are incorrect. You can legally but X-rated material in the Northern Territory and the ACT. The full act is here. There are quite a few mail order companies servicing the rest of Australia operating out of those two states. I can say with all confidence that most other states have a blind-eye approach to such material. I've sold X-rated material to police officers in uniform before, and in the last five years I've worked in adult none of the suppliers or stores have been prosecuted for selling X rated material. It's not actually that hard to find X rated material in Queensland.

There are however, restrictions on what can be awarded the X rating, and films must pass through the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This can take anywhere from a month or two for a standard heterosexual love-fest to up to 18 months for gay and transgender flicks, even the ones that centre on Mills-and-Boon level love stories. Bondage films are extremely difficult to get past classification. Often wholesalers will opt to stock unclassified films rather than go to the expense of having a film classified, esp. when the movie is a bottom-of-the-barrel title made of clips lifted from old VHS cassettes. Stores that sell unclassified films can be prosecuted quite heavily, and are occasionally raided. For some reason known only to the gods this tends to happen most often in election years.

The net result is that an X rated film you buy in a store over here is going to be more expensive and have less content than a similar international release, and are released quite a bit later. An independently conducted survey paid for by the EROS foundation recently showed that parents with children were significantly more likely so support the legal sale of such material. The whole-for-the-children-schtick tends to be supported by people who no longer have young kids or who never had kids to begin with.

The Australian approach to porn as a whole is monumentally flawed. It's legal to watch, own and distribute, yet each state fiddles around with the legislation as much as they can. You can no longer open an adult retail outlet within 200 metres of schools or churches in Queensland now, though thankfully there's a grandfather clause in there otherwise I'd be out of a job. But it's legal for kids to come into my shop, should they want to.

We had a wonderful moment here recently when the prototype filter was hacked by a 14 year old boy. My ISP tried to become involved with the program largely to discredit it, but was taken off the trial. I really, really hope that the abundant flaws in the system become increasingly obvious to its largely tech ignorant supporters. Really, anyone who knows anything about how these filters operate and how child porn rings work can tell you that this is all a monumental waste of money.
posted by Jilder at 12:08 AM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

Er, legally buy X rated material in the NT and the ACT.
posted by Jilder at 12:09 AM on March 19, 2009

2) clear free speech protection through a number of high court decisions.

Well, there is a very limited "implied right to freedom of political communication", but it's so weak as to be practically useless except in the most extreme cases and might not even exist with the current composition of the High Court. I wouldn't count on it.

It's arguable that the filters would need legislation to be put through the Senate (Greens Senator Scott Ludlam thinks so), but there may be a sneaky way around having to do this.

I wonder what terrible ALP crime Conroy committed to have to carry this terrible bucket of shit?

Probably the same one that landed him with the numerous other buckets of shit he has attached to various points on his person (Telstra, the "National Broadband Network", etc). The Communications portfolio was a pretty good one to have in Opposition, as he could hammer Coonan with the consequences of the botched Telstra privatisation. Now he's in Government (as the ludicrously titled "Minister for Broadband") and having to pick up the pieces himself it's not so much fun.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:24 AM on March 19, 2009

Thanks Jilder for your detailed post. It really is "monumentally flawed" as you say. Maybe some people don't realize that porn is protected as free speech in the USA. I have no idea what Australia's common law approach covers, but any censorship goes directly against free speech.

You can legally but X-rated material in the Northern Territory and the ACT. I said "states". Yes I know you can buy it in the territories.
posted by bhnyc at 12:25 AM on March 19, 2009

Also, the brisbanetimes article mentions (towards the end) the possibility that the leaked list contains items put there by the filtering company from which it was leaked. So it's not safe to assume that the ACMA blacklist actually includes the dentist's site and the other things on the wikileaks page.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:27 AM on March 19, 2009

A Thousand Baited Hooks: Would you believe it more if it were leaked by the ACMA itself?
posted by Jilder at 12:33 AM on March 19, 2009

What's their justification for censoring information about the blacklist itself? Do they even have one?

Yes, they have one. The list is basically a roadmap to banned sites. The government doesn't want to publish such a roadmap, for obvious reasons.

However, unless the list is published, we have no idea whether the list is restricted to the things to which the government says it is restricted.

It's not ideal (to put it mildly).
posted by robcorr at 12:41 AM on March 19, 2009

Jilder: well, yes, I would (and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the actual blacklist is leaked).
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:42 AM on March 19, 2009

Now this is just funny: people are putting a banned link into the Wikipedia entry for ACMA, presumably requiring ACMA to blacklist it.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:49 AM on March 19, 2009

Well, no. ACMA will presumably issue a take-down notice.
posted by robcorr at 1:04 AM on March 19, 2009

WP:POINT
posted by ryanrs at 1:14 AM on March 19, 2009

Hmm, if someone put banned content into the ACMA web site's search, then circulated the URL of the search results page displaying the banned content on their site, would they have to blacklist/prosecute themselves?
posted by malevolent at 2:00 AM on March 19, 2009

Dear World,

We're so sorry that our politicians are so stupid - we'll try to do better next time but intelligence appears to be limited here, so we might have a go electing a koala instead of the current sheep. Please find enclosed our deputy sheriff's badge (it took us a while to pry it away from John Howard) as we're officially turning it in - a swap with a cream pie and a banana skin is probably for the best. In the mean time, please continue to make fun of us - God knows logic, common-sense and facts aren't going to do much to change little minds, so perhaps being one giant whoopee target might.

Yours, third worldly,

Australia
(Advance Australia CENSORED)
posted by ninazer0 at 2:10 AM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

equally we're pretty M.O.R. for advanced nations regarding progressiveness. Moreso than Canada and new Zealand

Oh, please, tell me how advanced and progressive Australin race relations are compared to Canada and new Zealand. I could do with a giggle.
posted by rodgerd at 2:11 AM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

The proposed censorship scheme is supposed to be two tiered. The first tier, compulsory for all Internet users in Australia, would filter material not considered suitable for any user, adult or otherwise. The second, optional tier would filter material considered not to be child-safe.

Is anyone aware of which tier the leaked list is supposed to represent? The inclusion of sites such as ishotmyself would make sense if it was the kid-safe variant, but would be an overreach otherwise. (The entire scheme is overreaching of course, but... you know.)
posted by chmmr at 2:29 AM on March 19, 2009

Is anyone aware of which tier the leaked list is supposed to represent? The inclusion of sites such as ishotmyself would make sense if it was the kid-safe variant, but would be an overreach otherwise. (The entire scheme is overreaching of course, but... you know.)

The description on Wikileaks seems to indicate it's the "adult mode" censor list — i.e. the one you can't ever turn off. This is apparently called "ACMA mode."

However, there's no real proof of this, and given the provenance of the list (taken from a piece of filtering software, apparently), it's entirely possible it contains some entries from the "child mode" list.

Just looking at the overall length of the list, which is not really that long compared to all the porn sites on the Internet, my gut feeling is that it really is the "adult mode" list, at least in very large part. There's no way it can be the "child mode" list; it's not nearly long enough. Most pieces of filtering software that attempt to block porn have very extensive blacklists, with many thousands of sites (some have hash tables that are megabytes long); this list doesn't seem aimed at porn in general (although it does have a lot of arguably innocuous sites on it), but at somebody's idea of really dirty porn, plus some stuff that's probably legitimately CP.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:27 AM on March 19, 2009

What's their justification for censoring information about the blacklist itself?...The list is basically a roadmap to banned sites.

Perhaps the government should not be in the business of creating lists of objectionable websites, then.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:46 AM on March 19, 2009

It is fucked. What a waste of money on something so wrong on multiple levels. If we riff on the "think about the children" theme how many kids lives could be saved by spending the money that will be blown on this farce on stuff that actually does save kids?

Will they blot out all mentions of VPN in this?
posted by zog at 5:11 AM on March 19, 2009

The proposed censorship scheme is supposed to be two tiered. The first tier, compulsory for all Internet users in Australia, would filter material not considered suitable for any user, adult or otherwise. The second, optional tier would filter material considered not to be child-safe.

Keep in mind that under the Broadcasting Services Act, R18+ material that does not require evidence of age (a "sure, I'm over 18" declaration isn't good enough) is "prohibited content". A lot of the Internet is R18+, or links to R18+ stuff (and is therefore also prohibited). A limited set of MA15+ material is also prohibited. Prohibited content goes on the blacklist, if reported to ACMA.

I'm pretty sure Conroy has said that the blacklist will be the basis for the mandatory filter. He certainly hasn't said it won't be. The second, optional filter will probably be a dynamic content-based filter and will make a net connection all but unusable for all but the most basic web viewing (but download as much illegal pr0n over peer to peer as you like).
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:28 AM on March 19, 2009

"I just saw my first child porn. Thanks, Metafilter!"

IN B4 VAN'D
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 6:26 AM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

equally we're pretty M.O.R. for advanced nations regarding progressiveness. Moreso than Canada and new Zealand

Oh, please, tell me how advanced and progressive Australin race relations are compared to Canada and new Zealand. I could do with a giggle.

It would be somewhat rude of me to favourite the latter comment, but I mean, yeah. Canada and New Zealand? Australia? Examples?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:38 AM on March 19, 2009

Australia is just trying to prevent itself from becoming home to more Josef Fritzl's.
posted by Nelson at 8:49 AM on March 19, 2009

pornography available from any milkbar

Hmmm... kind of weird then that mainstream porn sites like XTube and friends are going to be completely censored now.

Also, some of the sites here seem pretty political, and if that doesn't make you [CENSORED TO PROTECT AUSTRALIA'S ROSY-CHEEKED CHILDREN] a brick, nothing will. For example, a Christian organization that believes that traditional sexual conservatism has no basis in the Bible is censored, presumably to protect Australia's rosy-cheeked Christianity. So is an annoying satire and troll site where people ridicule things, possibly because of its reputation as a platform for legendary pseudo-political pseudo-organization Anonymous.
posted by Xezlec at 12:51 PM on March 19, 2009

Oh, please, tell me how advanced and progressive Australin race relations are compared to Canada and new Zealand. I could do with a giggle.

Speaking to the legal side - native land rights, especially - when I was studying that area of law, it always seemed to be a matter of Australia and Canada taking it more or less in turn to improve the law, step by step.

It was as if each country could point to the other as a (non-binding) precedent. So, in that sense, neck and neck. The United States, in comparison, was eons behind; barely worth taking a glimpse at, at all.

New Zealand's a different matter, because the Maori were huge, fierce & politically coordinated, and were able to force the British into a treaty (the Treaty of Waitangi), which was effectively the founding document of that nation. Australian aboriginals lacked that political coordination, as they were living happily in a loose, largely nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:26 PM on March 19, 2009

The first thing I did was confirm that /b/ will be b& by the Australian government.

Australia is off of my list now.
posted by phredgreen at 11:05 PM on March 19, 2009

no need to worry yourself about it.

the immigration officials refuse entry to anybody who uses "b&" so you wouldn't have been allowed in, anyway.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:23 PM on March 20, 2009

German owner of Wikileaks domain raided - ACMA blacklist leak suspected.

I've been learning and playing a lot with TOR lately. I could really see it growing in popularity...
posted by Jimbob at 7:03 PM on March 24, 2009

Dentist added to the list by Russian mob.
posted by tellurian at 7:16 PM on March 26, 2009